Re: Round-tripping key definitions

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> It'd be nice if doing a `describe-keymap' would output the same bindings
> that we put in.  I mean, on the same form.  If you define a key as
> "C-i", that function will describe the key as "TAB", for instance.  (And
> the person making that keymap may have meant C-i with "i" being a
> mnemonic for something.)

FWIW, I think the TAB/C-i, RET/C-m, ESC/C-[, DEL/C-? confusion should be
fixed by really decoupling the two.

Maybe one way to do that is to have a `function-key-map` fallback from `[?\C-i]`
to `[TAB]` (so `?\C-i` and `tab` would be "equal partners" both of
which default to falling back to the new `TAB` key).

You say "for instance" above, but which confusing cases are there other
than the four TAB/C-i, RET/C-m, ESC/C-[, DEL/C-? special cases?

> `describe-keymap' could use the :bindings entry to look up the intended
> syntax (and not output that element).
>
> Yeah!  I think that should work?  (We'd only add this entry if there's
> any "ambiguous" keys in the map, so the impact wouldn't be noticeable, I
> think.)
>
> Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

Truly inspiring.  A have a question: how would you define "ambiguous"?


        Stefan